curious

For those that are interested, I note that James previously published a similar analysis of the impact of 3yo allowances. This also calls into question the widely spruiked idea that the impact of weight increases with race distance. https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/does-weight-age-give-3-year-olds-unfair-advantage-you-decide/

It probably is, more importantly though, the interpretation of it. It's beyond others as well obviously including NZTR unfortunately which is why we have a completely stuffed handicapping system. That said, this is not some sort of arrogant campaign to bamboozle those who have a maths phobia. It's the principals that are important here. While I can write the kind of software queries required to do this sort of analysis, I usually get help because the more competent can do what would take me days in minutes. Neither Thomaas nor NZTR among others seem able to grasp this when examining the impact of any variable on results. I may try to explain this in simple understandable terms when I have time. For now, I'd just say that the above has been done right and is appropriately tempered with caution that it is not conclusive and can not be without adjustment for the chance/ability of all runners.

And here's some fairly robust analysis that suggests that the Admiral was wrong and the allowance should probably be removed although I note that's not what you asked. https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/why-fillies-mares dont-need-weight-allowance-highest-level/

Off the top of my head Freda, I think it's 2kgs Oz, NZ, Japan. 3lbs UK, Europe? 4lbs Hong Kong.

I thought you did and of course I agree. You can not draw conclusions from strike rates whether it's jockeys or trainers or females cf males with comparing them to a reasonably accurate assessment of chance the horses would have had with that variable excluded. That's just dumb and one of the main reasons why most punters lose. Do that kind of assessment on the female allowance in the wfa scales and you will arrive at a different answer I suspect.

Check your maths ATA. 2.279m turnover @ say .15 gross revenue is about $340,000. Say half that net = 170,00. What did they give away in stakes? Unsustainable business I'd say.

What does retrospective mean Thommo? Going backwards like you are?

Did you go blind in the Maldives as well or are you off your meds again Thommo? I think you'll find one was a H10 and the other H11, not both H11 as you suggest.

Could easily be done. In the US almost all races are only 30 minutes apart. Horses for the next race should be in the back parade ring, saddled, ready to come in while the previous race is run. Simple. As to the adjudication. Imagine if it took the world cup video ref 10 or 15 minutes to make a decision on a run out. There's be a riot and then next time everyone would go home.

The only problem with that Reefton is that the gross margin on turnover is more like 12-15% so I don't see how you can pay out 25% on average to clubs after all other expenses?

Good idea to move them closer to the contending horse population. Trying to think of a NI track suitable to host them. Castlepoint?

That's certainly a lot more sensible than anything Messara or NZTR have come up with barryb.

Saw that. Who would do it though?

They manage at trials 10-12 minutes apart and a lot more of them. Of course they have to weigh in and out that would take a bit more organisation but they'd have much shorter days for their efforts.

Think you'll find those are the same boring old 35/40 minutes apart. An hour for the million. Not what barryb is proposing at all.

Not sure at this point. It may be too late to turn around. 5 or 6 years ago there seemed to be a glimmer of a hope if things were sorted quickly but it really needed to happen a decade or two ago. The focus needs to be on the product, both the TR product and the wagering product. On the first, it's the same old things. Integrity, handicapping system, track surfaces, stakes structure etc. as well as ideas like Barryb's Racing 20. Such a thing could be piloted at virtually no cost and I think would not only appeal to track goers but also those who might gather for a couple of hours in pubs, clubs and homes to have a drink, a bite to eat, watch a few races and have a few bets. Potential there to expose the young ones too. The wagering product is pretty obvious I think. Hard to believe that NZ has gone from being a world leader with the introduction of off course betting in the 50s to the parlous state it is in today and that mainly by way of delayed reaction to, rather than anticipation of, social change. We now have more of the same with the introduction of the PoC tax further increasing costs to punters and encouraging the TAB to price even less competitively. It's a sad day to have to say this, but I'm not sure if all the necessary fixes were put in place tomorrow that the ship won't still go down. I'm also not convinced that moving the deck chairs by way of closing/building tracks are likely to provide any more than additional costs, put more pressure on already failing tracks, and ultimately worsen rather than improve the product.

Tried to get the Trainers' Association to push for that in the late 90s. Wouldn't hear of it. Too hard. Requires extra staff and organisation, not enough lead time for betting, etc. etc.

Presumably not nominated by the recommendations panel.

Nice idea but when TR is struggling to generate enough revenue to cover half its stakes costs at the moment let alone anything else, how the hell is such a venture likely to cover operating costs, let alone recover the capital costs?

Add to that, the 1951 and 1952 Melbourne Cups were also won by the topweight, making 7 topweights in the last 69 years. And Tobin Bronze won the Caulfield Cup in 1967. Making that 7 in 64 years. Not bad To make things worse, the last winning topweight of the Caulfield Cup wasn't Dunaden. It was Best Solution last year and before that it was Admire Rakti in 2014. That's makes it 9 in 64 years.

You might want to recheck your data ATA. Don't know if you saw this. "Seems at odds with what the results say. In the Caulfield Cup, Redcraze won in 1956. Pretty sure he was the topweight. As was Rising Fast in 1955. Of course, Sky Heights won the 1999 Caulfield Cup ... as the topweight, and Northerly won in 2002 .... And Sydeston won as topweight in 1990. Along with Dunaden mentioned in 2012. Comic Court didn't even win the Caulfield Cup in 1950 (he won the Melbourne Cup in 1950 as topweight). I make that at least 6 in 64 years. about 1 in 11. ................................. In the Melbourne Cup, Hyperno won in 1979 as topweight as did Rain Lover in 1969. And Comic Court in 1950. Along with the mentioned Rising Fast in 1954. So that makes 5 top weights winning in the last 69 years. Given the number of topweights during that time, 5 seems pretty high to me."

No. As I tried to explain above, those data came from an analysis assessing the effectiveness of the current handicapping/rating system. The only way to do that is to examine the success rate of horses in each weight band cf. their expected success rate if in a perfect handicapping system. So, INCLUDING horses that did not carry their carded weight might distort the findings, not EXCLUDING them. And no, I do not consider weight or weight allowances in the assessment of individual chance if that's what you mean. Nor do I use the type of population statistics that I posted to inform that assessment in any way. I don't know how you could do that.

Because I'm trying to assess the performance of horses at their handicapped weight.

Who wants to build a flash stand at Foxton? What's wrong with the recently refurbished one?

It couldn't be otherwise if I'm understanding your question Fred. Some horses carry overweight and some have apprentice allowances so don't carry their carded weight. The remainder carry there carded weight. Hope that makes sense?